“Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?”
"Coyne on intentionality"
“The early Wittgenstein on scientism”
"Tom and Jerry"
"So you think you understand the cosmological argument?"
"Grow up or shut up"
"Argumentum ad Himmlerum"
"Eric MacDonald's assisted intellectual suicide"
"A final word on Eric MacDonald"
"Addendum [on MacDonald]"
Scientism is related to naturalism, the view that serious philosophy is continuous with natural science and that all genuine philosophical problems can be solved at least indirectly by further research in natural science. Naturalism is ultimately as indefensible as scientism is. For some general criticisms of naturalism, see:
Scientism and naturalism derive whatever plausibility they have from the assumption that almost everything has by now been explained by science in purely materialist terms, so that it is implausible to suggest that morality, the human mind, and other philosophically puzzling phenomena will not yield too to materialistic or naturalistic explanation. But the idea that “everything else has been explained in materialist terms” is itself an illusion, based on sheer metaphysical sleight of hand. Indeed, materialism rests on a conception of matter that makes a completely materialist account of the world in principle impossible, at least given the incoherence of eliminativism. I explain why in: